https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81079 Excise exemption under Notification No. 83/83-C.E. was unavailable because the aggregate clearances from the factory in the preceding financial year exceeded the prescribed limit, and the procedural clause could not override that substantive condition. Duty demands were partly time-barred because, absent suppression of facts, the extended limitation period was not available; the assessable value also had to be computed after excluding the duty element where it formed part of the price. The concessional rate under Notification No. 148/81-CE was denied for want of proof that the goods were used in the prescribed industries and that Chapter X procedure was followed. Penalty and confiscation were unsustainable in the absence of suppression. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:55:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81079 Excise exemption under Notification No. 83/83-C.E. was unavailable because the aggregate clearances from the factory in the preceding financial year exceeded the prescribed limit, and the procedural clause could not override that substantive condition. Duty demands were partly time-barred because, absent suppression of facts, the extended limitation period was not available; the assessable value also had to be computed after excluding the duty element where it formed part of the price. The concessional rate under Notification No. 148/81-CE was denied for want of proof that the goods were used in the prescribed industries and that Chapter X procedure was followed. Penalty and confiscation were unsustainable in the absence of suppression. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81079